Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreA suit was originally filed to cancel a sale deed executed between two parties over a property. After the original plaintiff died, his heirs continued the suit, but one heir (acting as power of attorney for the others) sold the disputed property to three outsiders during the litigation. When the other heirs objected and had this heir and the purchasers re-designated as defendants, those re-designated parties later sought to be transposed back as plaintiffs after the remaining original plaintiffs tried to withdraw the suit following a private settlement. The trial court and the High Court allowed this transposition, which the appellant (the original buyer of the disputed property) challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined Order XXIII Rule 1-A read with Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, which allows a defendant with a genuine, substantial interest in a suit to be transposed as a plaintiff if the existing plaintiffs withdraw or abandon their claim. The Court held that the re-designated parties (who had originally stepped into the shoes of the deceased plaintiff's heirs) retained a real stake in challenging the sale deed, and that this interest was not extinguished merely because they had been technically repositioned as defendants earlier in the litigation. Finding no error in the lower courts' reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the transposition.
When the original plaintiffs in a civil suit try to settle and withdraw, a co-defendant who genuinely shares the same interest in the dispute (and would have benefited had the plaintiffs won) has a right to continue the case by being transposed as a plaintiff, so that one party's private settlement cannot be used to defeat another party's legitimate claim.
